with michael hirsh of the national journal. and then the debt limit with d amian paletta. "washington journal" is next. >> our concern with the cause of the defenseless people of syria is a bout choices that will directly affect our goal in the world and our interests in the world. it is also profoundly about who we are. >> secretary of state kerry making the case for potential military strikes in syria as a response for the use of chemical weapons. president obama also speaking yesterday, saying he is still waiting operation -- us bill weighing options -- still weighing options. we want to hear from you about not only what was given, information wise, but if you are convinced by it.

here is how you can weigh in this morning. republicans,for democrats,0 offor independents.or you can reach out to us on facebook, off of twitter, and at journal@c-span.org. it was a four-page document that was put out by the administration, showing some of the cases they are making as far as what they have found in syria. this is what was unclassified, not everything was put out there. you can also find this document at our website, c-span.org. a little bit from it --

also it says --

there is more to the document and the information that was given by the administration yesterday. kerry givingstate the case, we will show some of those clips as well during the course of our first 45 minutes together. for the information that was given on syria yesterday, we want to get your thoughts and if you were convinced by it. if you want to give us a call, the phone lines -- go ahead and make those calls. theill get an update from white house perspective of possible u.s. intervention. the white house correspondent from reuters is joining us. for the information that was put out yesterday, the question now

is what is next for the administration as they make their case? www.c-span.or(202) 737-0002 guest: as you mentioned in your introduction, the president made forceful arguments in favor of military response without laying out a timetable or giving specific details on when and where and how. however, that the united states does not want to get involved in a long protracted military action in syria. the president made a point yesterday, saying that targets would be limited and it would not be long-term. right now we are just waiting and seeing what happens when. what is on the schedule for the president this week? we sought -- we saw pictures of key advisors.

guest: there is nothing they have put on the schedule. it seems likely they will be meeting. we have checked in with the white house this morning and we are told that once they are able to confirm that type of meeting -- they have not confirmed yet. going to be an additional conference call today between members of the president's national security staff and republican and democratic senators on capitol hill. the consultation process is continuing. that is the time they are getting close to making a decision. indicationere any from the white house about a specific legal case he made about any action that may take place in syria? guest: that is one question posed by many different sides. one tweet said that if any actions are needing

justification for taking then -- united states will take will provide those justifications. they did not say how they will make that determination. i did not have any details for you on that that is absolutely an issue we are watching. headlines talks about how not only from secretary kerry's speech but this action overall marks a change in foreign policy. especially when it comes to the middle east administration. within the white house, -- guest: i think that this was a president who came in campaigning against the war, promising to end it. middle, as youhe know, of closing down the war in afghanistan. to be in a position where he looks like he will lead some kind of action against syria , because they form

coalitions is not coming into place, is not unusual. as the president tries to make clear yesterday, he wants to articulate u.s. values by not only -- by not allowing a chemical attack to go unnoticed and not allowing it to go without a response. time he also took some talking about how far he is willing to go, reiterating no boots on the ground. guest: which is very important. that ties back to what we were talking about with regard to previous wars. he knows just as well as anyone that the american public is not interested in getting involved in another long drawnout war peak he said yesterday that no one is more war weary than i am. as part of his presentation to he wants to people show that he emphasizes with that sense of reluctance.

that's why whenever they end up doing in syria, he says it will be limited. >> jeff mason, what is next to look out for the viewers watching at home? fort: next i would watch updates out of the white house in terms of meetings. we might get some details from the conference call between national security advisers and members of congress. sometimes members of congress are more eager or more willing to share some of those details. of course, if there is a strike we are more likely to hear about that when it happens in the region, possibly before we happen to hear from it in the u.s. -- hear about it from the u.s.. they haven't given any details about timing but it stands to reason that if they decide on a military strike it will happen before he leaves.

he goes on a trip to sweden and then to russia on tuesday. it seems unlikely that he would order a strike while he is abroad. quickly,ant to do it it is likely to happen in the next couple of days or once he returns. host: jeff mason from reuters, talking about the potential of plans for syria. thank you. out bytion that was put the white house yesterday from the secretary of state, we are asking you if you were convinced by what was put out there. again, the phone lines will be on your screen. if you want to call -- alexandria, virginia is where we will start this morning, charles is on our republican line. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you, i appreciate

it. i just want to say that i am finding myself more and more in support of the president. -- my preface my room remarks by saying i spent the last nine years in work and afghanistan. i am not without some experience in that part of the world. i am finding that a small, surgical strike against the chemical weapons is probably the from aad alternative whole bunch of worse alternatives. no one wants another war, no one wants troops on the ground, no one wants to open up that whole can of forms. -- of worms. the next worst thing we can do is nothing, stand by while a rogue criminal regime uses weapons of structured against

their own people is unacceptable. host: was this progressive all along or was there something yesterday said that shifted your thinking? was -- to use the administrations own terms, the red line -- the regime in syria has been thumbing its nose for long time. sooner or later they are going to push the president over the line. host: let us go to hosea in kingsville, texas on the democrats line. guest: how are you doing? i want to thank washington journal. i'm against any type of strike on syria. that would be considered an act of war. it is peace that must be freely given to all people on planet

earth. a great nationbe that has peace and a great force for all people to admire and x -- and respect. did you have a chance to hear anything up information that was put out by the administration yesterday? caller: i sure do. to tell you the truth. -- to tell you the truth i believe john kerry should be replaced as secretary of state. i am very saddened. host: what saddens you specifically? caller: his wanting an attack on syria. i think we should give peace a chance. i am a second generation united states marine. my son is third-generation with tree combat tours. i think we need to give peace a chance. what would jesus christ do?

from oregon. next caller: i'm calling to let you know i did not agree with this. the whole anything world should be involved in it, not just the united states. i do not press this matter. the secretary of defense was no hero in vietnam. he was a pretend hero. host: what do you make of the information that was put out yesterday? caller: i think it is a scandal. host: we are asking you as the administration made its case yesterday if you were convinced by what was put out there. on facebook --

on twitter -- information was declassified for the public. the secretary of state talked exactly about what he knew from the assad regime and what they did. here's is a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] hase know the assad regime the largest chemical weapons program in the entire middle east. we know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year. they have used them on a smaller

them, but still has used against their own people, including not very far from where last wednesday's attack happened. we know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the damascus suburbs of the opposition and it was frustrated that it had not succeeded in doing so. we know that for three days before the attack the syrian regime's tentacle weapon -- regime's chemical weapons personnel were in the area making preparations. we know the syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons. we know that these were specific instructions. we know where the rockets were launched from. and from what time. we know where they landed.

and when. we know rockets came only from regime controlled areas and went only to opposition controlled or contested neighborhoods. put out awhite house map yesterday of the strikes and where they landed. as you heard secretary of state kerry talking about -- here is a map in syria. highlighted in yellow is where those chemical weapons landed. referredhe document we to earlier can be found on the white house website, also linked website.span robert is on next on our republican line. caller: i was not convinced that all because i will not listen to anything john kerry has to say. we know for a fact that saddam hussein used chemical weapons on

his own people. but that was wrong place wrong time. now he wants to go when here you ? both sides are enemies of freedom. democrats line next, new york. iller: i wanted to say that feel that the administration is doing the correct thing, that we cannot stand by and see innocent people killed by a regime like this. -- no one the strikes wants to be involved in another war. i am concerned about iran, who is watching very closely. state we need to really be careful of edge what they are doing to their own people, as well. i feel the administration is doing the right thing. i am encouraging european workries to step up and

with the united states because we should not do it alone. they need to develop the courage and do what is right for all humanity. host: even if the strikes are strategic to my are you afraid that even in that there will be fallout as far as loss of life and other reaction from countries, even what it might do for the ground war in syria? caller: there is a possibility but we do need to protect these innocent people at this point. we need to stand up and say that certain behaviors are just unacceptable. i think that is what the other european countries should say as well, that certain actions are unacceptable against all humanity. it doesn't matter whether you like the president or don't, this is a humanitarian effort and we should help each other out. john from hudson, florida on the independent line. caller: i don't think he should.

if he worked with congress, which he never had, he would believe in the rule of law. he doesn't believe in the constitution. he is not even going to ask congress. he's still going to do it. the bottom line, i don't believe in obama, i don't trust him, and he doesn't work with congress. this was a great country once. after obama, we are a laughing stock. i'm more concerned with china. with congress,g you are looking for congress to approve any military action. caller: just like the u.k. house of commons, their prime minister wadded up and they voted it down. why can't we use the democratic process? "the new york times" talks about the political process, they write --

we are asking you if you were convinced by the information put out there.

we are joined on our republican line. caller: good morning. i served in the united states military for 11 years and have been over in that theater of operations. let me preface what i am going to say -- i believe the nation is going to give us a better perspective and the president ought to listen to the leaders and israeli forces on what to do in this situation. host: why not listen to his own advisers and congress on this? fairness, there is nothing like seeing the real mccoy up close and personal. if you know anything about the mideast, it goes back to the days of the british empire.

israelis have a much better handle on their business and we do. does any of the information convince you? caller: i don't get any good feelings. secretary kerry is a nice person but this time he is dead wrong. no interest in syria. it is a british question only. i wish americans with go up and start learning history. befuddled when it comes to finding out what the world thinks about america. people want to see americans stay home. host: that refers to how america's involvement in

afghanistan weighs upon positions being made. here's what he had to say. [video clip] collects my preference would be that the national community already asked forceful. is ane have seen incapacity for the security counsel to move forward in the face of a clear violation of international norms. i recognize that here in the united states and in great parts of theany world there is a certain afghanistanen there's a suspicion of any military action. on the other hand it is important for us to recognize

hundreds of innocent children were killed. -- were killed through the use of a weapon that 98% of a weapon that says should not be used in a war. there is no action that we are sending a signal that that international norm doesn't mean much. host: cooper is up next. i can't help but think -- caller: i can't help but think it sabotages the democratic party. there is not a lot going on there. it's using a sabotage of the democratic party.

it sabotage ofe the democratic party. next color -- us with any hit icbm, we sure are not going to use chemical weapons now. there is no answer and violence. that is all i have to say. any of theou hear information put out yesterday iu go -- yesterday? caller: am not convinced. i see it is wholly wrong. i do not see an endgame in it. the wall street journal puts out some of the information. they say --

you heard secretary kerry and others talking about social media, saying that local social media reported -- republican line -- presidentbelieve for havingsponsible

gone to cairo shortly after his inauguration and giving a speech there. egypt,king about libya, and syria. that to strike syria without an act of war from congress is an impeachable act. jimmy from san antonio texas. democrats line. caller: good morning. i strongly support the president and the democrats for what they have done over the last five years. i totally agree with your the arabs arears just like a family. you can fight among yourself. you don't want anybody to jump into your business.

it gives them a reason to fund terrorism. it gives them an excuse to attack our allies because we attacked them. the other thing is democracy. we have enough problems here in the united states of voters rights, education, women's thats, and jim crow laws we should be taking care of ourselves first and stay out of the country is this. even with the use of chemical weapons, a violation of international norms -- caller: yes. and no one voted the united as judge, jury, and prosecutor. we should not be the world's cop.

we do not have the money for it. on those we use their missiles and key enforcements there, it can easily get a start on education -- we can easily get a start on education, infrastructure, and other things we need here in the states. i do not believe it is worth it. i believe it will antagonize people. that reports is moaning united nations inspectors left syria this morning as part of their -- they will take on information and start an analysis process. france has become a key ally when it comes to this effort. this is steven erlanger saying --

mark is up next and he is from oregon on our independent line. we are talking about the case made by the administration made about syria and if you were convinced. caller: i wasn't too convinced just for the fact that yesterday's morning discussion, a gentleman out of washington dc gave some evidence about the

inspectors finding that the chemicals used in those weapons were not exactly what the syrian government or assad's chemical weapons were. from what i understood, this gentleman stated that he had found on a website that these chemicals were not the same yet -- were not the same chemicals. i have a hard time believing mr. kerry and the rest of them but only for the fact that the united states government used the legal weapons during the the 2000 andduring during the george herbert walker bush administration, the anti- tank buster rounds that were 1982.ed in we are not totally innocent either. it is hard to believe the administration. i know they are doing their best to settle the conflict in the middle east.

is kind of hard when you are just as dirty as the rest of them. you can also reach out to us via e-mail. andy from vernon, new york. thanks for holding on, republican line. taking myink you for call. i want to add onto to what the last guy said. ,f your audience goes to google they are going to find numerous stories where syrian rebels admitted to an associated press correspondent that they were responsible for the chemical weapons incident, which obama is trying to blame on bashar al- assad. the casualties were a result of by mishandling the

weapons. they were told that they were not properly trained in handling the chemical weapons or even told what they were. that is where it came from. this is really reminiscent of the buildup to the first iraq war in the 90s when the iraq incubator incident, in which they fabricated story that iraq he soldiers went into a hospital in kuwait, not over and incubator, they even had a girl that alleged witnesses -- the problem was the girl was an ambassador's daughter. she was trained by a pr firm to say that. this was admitted now come out in the open. you cannot be listening to the propaganda. --s is just another pushed another push for war based on false pretenses. the only difference is we now have the internet and people can

smell the bs before it even starts. host: another e-mail, the only reason for the impending strikes is -- that is from larry reedit senator john mccain was on the jay leno program last night. amongst the things he was asked about was syria. jay leno posing the question, what would senator mccain have done in that situation? [video clip] >> the president apparently wants to have a cosmetics right andlogic use -- and law -- launch a few missiles. this is the same president who said that bashar al-assad had to go. he also said there would be a red line if they used chemical weapons. maybe that red line was written in disappearing ink.

as good as our word. is there any good options? no. >> if president, what would you do? clock's -- >> six runways that bashar al-assad uses, i would event him from a that prevent him from using his power. i would probably get a safe zone so that they can operate out of. you can do that in one day and not put a single american in any danger because you can do it with standoff -- host: "the wall street journal , sayingok this morning --

beverly joins us next from north carolina. caller: good morning. i was not for what the president wanted to do until yesterday when i heard -- when i listened to him and he pinpointed everything. that is a whole lot more than bush did when we went into iraq. i am certainly for it now. the congress is too chicken to come back and give a

vote. they do not want anyone to know what they want to do. for for it and i am even droning assad. not going to do. -- this is not going to end. for him doing exactly what he said he is going to do and doing something to help those people -- we cannot sit back and watch this happen. for those that say we need the money for other things in america, that is so true. but again, who controls the money in america? money not going to the places where it should be? that is all i have to say. the lead editorial from "the wall street journal," --

justin is up next from tampa florida. independent line. thank you for having this discussion. everyone realizes assad is a monster and the situation is desperate. the administration feigning all this horror as another regime using banned weapons when we have used white phosphorus and --the whole world

knows this. those are internationally banned weapons and we have killed thousands of innocent civilians with them. for our governments to fix all this horror and in other regime doing it sends a message to the world that the united states is the only broken nation in the world is allowed to use internationally banned weapons to murder innocent civilians. it is a legal. if you want to compare what we do with what other countries do the world ash if congress does not give the president authority to do it, it is illegal. if the un security council cannot come together and say that is what needs to be done, it is illegal. need not to start another mess in the middle east that we

will not be able to get out of for many years. the financial times takes a look at the events that take place in the united kingdom when it comes to its vote. isolationism -- charles from arkansas, republican line. caller: my father was in world

war i, might rather and two of us -- my mother and two of us were in korea. great war that kerry was such a hero in. the idea that we can declare war against syria? is there any difference between cutting a man's head off with a machete or gassing him? if you are going to ask me, i would sooner be gassed than have my head cut off. we have no business over there. the past conversation from this president versus his conversation now, it is just ridiculous. i do not understand why all these people calling in want to whatre war when look at they have done in africa. we have done nothing to help people in africa. we have done nothing to help

people in different countries. if you think this is going to come down like bosnia, no way. host: the newspaper offers this column on potential consequences if action does take place in syria --

barbara is up next. caller: i am against going to war and doing anything in syria because i believe all of the other people have had very good reasons. add that instead of military action i think it is time to think out-of-the-box on some of the situations. assad in the world court for crimes against humanity and show that the world -- that would be a better way to show that the world is against it. host: why would it be better yet -- better?r yet go caller: i think we need to get away from military responses and

use common sense, knowing that if we make a strike they will do something worse. i feel strongly that we need to .ely on a legal approach i think the united nations would be strengthened by that. editorsashington post" right -- -- write -- ington d.c. onhignto our independent line. caller: i agree with our last caller because i certainly would

to thede -- put assad international court of justice and hold him up as failing to people from this kind of thing. i don't know how it's done and i don't know how you get him to hand himself over but i would gettingmy efforts in to him to answer to the international court. from one more call virginia beach on the republican line, good morning. caller: i find it ironic that mr. kerry would quote the intelligence community when he is running for president -- the intelligence community. when he was running for the -- warning for the

president he said that they only answer to the president. he made a point that anywhere from 100 to 1000 people have been killed in these chemical attacks. overis the difference if 120,000 people have been killed in various methods you don't what is difference if they were killed by iron bombs or chemical weapons? our solution is to kill 1000 more? i do not see the sense in that. host: that is the last call we will take on this topic. coming up we will take a look at syria with michael hirsch of the national journal. with a turn to politics fight over the debt ceiling with damian paletta. that will be later on in the program. on our newsmakers program, which you can see on sunday right after this program, we will .eatured thomas donohue

he talks about the chamber's role on the economic landscape compared to that of the republican party. >> i don't want to be on the republican party. i think some of the people on the far right of the republican party have created an agenda that is detrimental to republicans who are trying to make this economy stronger and trying to help the business community get economic growth over three and a half percent -- over 3.5%. i am not worried about the reaction that somebody would say we are a paper tiger. if we are a paper tiger we are the toughest paper tiger in town. stay tuned to news and 11. -- news at 11. >> it doesn't appear that the guys that voted against the debt ceiling were cotton rid of. lacks that is a good question to

ask because that's were gotten rid of. >> -- were cotton rid of. >> that is a good question to ask. think about it from your own personal issue. if you had a choice, would you cut down on some of your spending or would you default on your mortgage? -- what thatld do would do to the legitimacy of the american economic system and our global position i naturally, andosition financially, what it will do in the future is just plain silly. let that happen. i know there are a lot of people , new people in the house -- folks at heritage saying we should earn the house down so we can build a new one. that is just fine if you knew what you were talking about. but you don't. i think there is going to be a

conflict on these issues and there is going to be a conflict in the primaries on these issues as well. responsibility, it is not to advance the republican party. it is to advance the american business community, which is a mental core of what drives the american economy. -- a fundamental core of what drives the american economy. host: as promised, michael hirsh. we are continuing the conversation about syria. for the information that was put out by the administration yesterday, what do you think as far as the bigger case they are trying to build? --ler: it was guest: it was a well constructed statement that john kerry was the point man. caseme out and delivered a to basically make the case that

the chemical weapons have been used by the asad regime. the key issue he was trying to resolve were chemical weapons and was there evidence that the regime had ordered its? he cited a whole host of intelligence information, some based on telephone intercepts, andllite imagery interestingly to me, it was a new kinds of intelligence case that was intended to directly overcome the credibility issues left over from iraq. he cited social media and videos that appeared on the internet, saying that within 90 minutes after the alleged chemical weapon attack, social media era did in syria in terms of social media you rocked it in syria in terms of reporting. -- social media erupted in

syria. it was a persuasive case. one of the big questions, certainly on military action that we will focus on, is the way that sources and methods were left out. this gets back to the iraq credibility problem. we worse -- we were citing telephone intercepts that were picked up by the national security agency, which has become controversial in the recent months. secretary kerry did not tried out technical information -- trot out technical information. end it remains a persuasive circumstantial case without a smoking gun. host: as far as the questions left unanswered, he said some of the information they had they cannot put out to the general public. it could be part of that? this is typical for the

intelligence community. sources and methods, whether it thatchnical, or the way the internet undergo surveillance. human intelligence and spies inside the asad regime, all that is not address for obvious reasons. you don't want to reveal how you learn something. that is a very standard operating procedure for the intelligence community. the biggest issue for the , particularly it seems if they are going to be acting on this alone, is will the world believe them? a picture of the president meeting with national security advisers yesterday. we'll kind of support now could the president the pentagon if we have -- what kind of support for the president depend on if we

have france? who does he turn to? the irony is that barack obama has made clear for a long time that he does not want to get involved in the syrian civil war. tois saddled with having enforce a multilateral norms unilaterally. this is not an invasion, this is not iraq. this is a putative strike that 's aimed at bashar al-assad violation of an international norm against the use of chemical weapons, which dates back to world war i. that is what obama hopes to achieve here. secretary kerry made it clear yesterday and the president himself made it clear. support, thereet are a number of countries that are quietly cheering him on.

possibly many arab league countries. they cannot bring themselves to endorse in other military intervention in the middle east. that really is something that dates back to the iraq war. in so many ways the iraq war continues to haunt the world and this country. as we saw that very vividly on thursday in the british parliament -- here is great written that has always been a very steadfast ally of the united states in terms of military action. almost entirely, i think because of the case of the war in iraq and the embarrassment of great britain going along with that war, they voted down military action. host: the numbers on the screen if you want to ask our guest about syria and his analysis of it. the lines --

you can also tweet us, e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. 10 years ago we did not have france. what is behind that? guest: france has more and more taken up a leading war and some of these international actions. we saw the intervention in libya. a really france led a mission. the united states supported it logistically and in the air. , particularly in the last year, intervened in northern mali and areas in north africa where french colonies were formally. france has taken a very forthright role and what we are facing now, the united states that is, is international action that will be supported only by

france. that is what we are looking at. in a. of0 years -- in a period 10 years, one would say the french reservations of the war in iraq were worn out to being a ofher aggressive champion western intervention. host: we have calls lineup for you but one more question, and what does action constitute in your mind as a change of foreign policy to the middle east or is this an isolated case? i think president obama sees it as an isolated case. there's a lot of debate with people harking back to iraq and americans getting back to the middle east in a military way. i think obama's hope is that this is not the case.

he has said repeatedly that this is going to be a limited punitive action. missile strikes will not be drawn out and will be intended to affect the outcome of the syrian civil war. whether he can actually limit it to that remains to be seen. host: we have the president in his own words yesterday. here is a little bit about that here is a little bit of what he has to say about the community. [video clip] as i have already said i have had my military look at a wide range of options. with allies,lted consulted with congress, been in conversations with all of the

interested parties. in no event are reconsidering any kind of motor reaction -- are we considering any kind of military action that would put its on the ground or involve a long-term campaign. -- put boots on the ground or involve a long-term campaign. looking at a limited act that would help make sure that but othersria around the world understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban. i repeat, we are not considering any open ended commitment. we are not considering any notes on the ground approach. what we will do is consider options that meet the concern around chemical weapons, understanding that there is not going to be a solely military

solution to the underlying conflict and tragedy that is taking place in syria. limited and narrow, we have heard that a lot. this history teach us anything about what happens if we go into a narrow sense? i think history teaches that a kind of strike that obama is talking about does not have much impact. that is a real challenge for him here. he is trying to walk a line that is so fine i don't know that whether it is possible to walk it. assad and antrike effective way so that the message is delivered. he cannot use chemical weapons he needs to do it in such a way that the united states does not get drawn into the syrian civil war. hard to do. anything that does not really serious,d something

for example allegedly his brother was in charge of the chemical weapons. i don't know if they are going to target him directly or not. certainly the strike has been telegraphed so that the asad regime and its elements , and that is really the main question that we can't answer until the day after or in the weeks after the strikes. if they come. will this be a situation that is not -- the impact is not taken seriously, bashar al-assad give a speech saying i'm still here, and this was nothing, and for tends to shake it off, so the messages not delivered, or will so effective a strike that it weakens his regime, which in turn does risk the u.s. getting drawn into a situation where you could have radical islamists take over the country.

it is a very tough military objective. the one thing that does make it easy is unlike the kosovo intervention in 1999 or other military interventions, there is no stated objective here beyond punishing him. milosevicave to get out of the province or something like that. the 1990 78 days in eight bombing campaign by nato. here, they can pretty much do what they want at the americans can declare victory. victoryit is taking a by the world is another issue. host: we are joined by michael hirsch of the "national journal ." good morning, thank you for waiting. caller: i have a comment in a question. -- thet, did this war people who are smart and listening are good people, but this war is not sponsored by the

population of the united states, not sponsored by the german population, the canadian, u.k., japanese, russian population. jewish, is sponsored by israeli people. in the israeli government. the people of israeli are good people. in israel control the united states government. jewsu think the zionist control the united states government? guest: no. up next,issa, democrats line. caller: hello. intervention in syria should not be the united states main responsibility or concern. uponcal warfare is frowned . if president obama had not great read line, the united states will not be forced to put up or shut up.

the world already looks at us and laughs. you know, i do not believe in chemical warfare, but i also don't believe in getting involved in a civil war. makes anll, the caller important point which as we would not be in this situation had obama not drawn to the redline a year ago. obviously, his intent was to warn assad against the use of chemical weapons, thinking that would be enough. it was not enough. has twohe president now to basicallyhas back of the credibility of his statement and now he is being forced into an action that we do not know whether it will be ineffective or not. at the same time, and this is one of the things that kerry did alec whitley, you have to look at the risks of not acting.

the next regime that will do that? what will be the risk that u.s. soldiers in the field might be placed in future situations? ban thatn important has been a place, international treaty, for a long time. most countries of the world of been signatories of the chemical weapons ban. thatnk it has become clear apart from the united states and france, no other country seems to be willing to enforce this ban. based on the clear evidence that it is highly likely that the assad regime used chemical weapons and is really killing more than 400 children. so, you know, you have to be a little bit some of that activity president. that he probably mistranslated in drying that redline, but how could he know that assad would reach it the way that he did. asks joseph from twitter

if it has been established that i thought had been in the chain of command in the use of chemical weapons. guest: i know that they try to establish that siegel -- senior regime officials were involved. i do not know that they have the evidence that assad personally gave the order. host: johnny is up next, florida, independent line. caller: yes, hello, can you hear me? host: yeah, you are on. caller: first of all, i want to say i served for over 20 years in the united states military. anell you what, this is atrocity because whenever there is women and children that are massacred, murdered the way they syriahe president of should be removed, politically or whatever.

now, what's he crossed to the redline, and he knew that once he crossed it, that is it. actions must be taken. supportou what -- i do what mr. mccain -- that is a little but more the line of my support, that he is not the president. -- there is not doubt in my military mind that if he goes forth, he will have the people of the united states in back of him. the mideast truth starts coming out of -- the minute he truth starts coming out what is going on over there. the gentleman up there, you know, i just want to say i do hadort with what mr. kerry to say, and the president has authority, he gave the gentleman a warning over a year ago. for thet is time

united states of america to act. guest: well, that certainly is the position of john mccain, republican senator, and others who are urging even more aggressive action to get involved in the civil war, to affect the outcome. clearly that is not going to happen under this president, or not intentionally. so we're going to have to see what happens in terms of weather strikes that do not take out bashar al-assad can be effective. way: how we look at the congress has looked at this issue in response to congress -- conflicts past. on the republican side, they tend to oppose or question anything that obama is doing good you have seen that in the words of john boehner,

republican house speaker, who more or less supports taking some action, but is demanding more information. beennk that there has particularly in the libertarian right, a lot of opposition, and among the liberal democrats, some opposition. similar to the british parliament. there is a lot of queasiness over getting involved militarily after two long wars in iraq and afghanistan in that region of the world. so what you have seen is people insisting that the leadership on the republican side particularly insisting that the president goes to the congress first before acting. the president obvious he does not think you need to do that under the war powers act. he has a 60 days to take action before asking for congressional approval by most accounts. these strikes that we are

hearing about, which could happen in in the next few days, would be over long before that. i do not think there is anyone seriously questions -- that i have heard -- whether the president actually has the legal rights to do what he is about to do. you have to bear in mind he is also -- he has also launched hundreds of drone strikes while he over the last several years under the same kind of authorization. somethink there is clearly opposition, some resistance, but more i think it is a sense of national uneasiness that you see in the congress. what is the objective here you ? how are you going to punish a leader that you don't seem to want to weaken dramatically because again the outcome could apart run that split by radical islamist parties that are even more anti-u.s. in some .ays than bashar al-assad is that is the war that obama does not want to get involved in.

host: here is joe from indiana, republican line, hello. ofler: yes, i have a lot sympathy with the previous caller, but i think he used the word gentleman with extreme inappropriateness. differ between monsters and gentlemen. irsch, the second to third last color in the last segment advocated a trial in absentia for but sure off -- for bashar al-assad. think that would be seen as a king of court and must summary was there or the the the other side. does mr. hirsch have an opinion on how a trial could differ the

men and the monsters? perhaps circumstantial was too weak a word to describe the evidence. i think, though, it applies in terms of personal culpability on the part of a thought. that is what we don't quite have. they do have telephone intercepts that indicate again senior regime elements ordered these attacks. obviously, the evidence of the attacks themselves is quite overwhelming in terms of the said,images, as kerry men, women, children debt without any visible marks on them. testimony ofess doctors and nurses in the hospital's. -- hospitals. bere is a powerful case to made that some terrible chemical weapons attack occurred. i think if you would put an individual on trial, you would need more to show that he

actually ordered the attack. albuquerque, new mexico, democrats line. caller: good morning. what concerns me so much most is the fact that all these people that i have been hearing on the news is they need to stop putting a blind eye and a deaf ear to this man. what is happening there. understandy years to what hitler was doing to the jews, and not just jews, i am sure there were many americans and many other people that were in that country at the time when they were killed and aghast, -- women and children as well as men. i truly believe what obama is doing, and i truly believe that what kerry -- especially what mr. mccain -- i think it takes a devastation to take this man out. i do not believe in a trial.

this man is going to use every means never to get caught. i believe a devastation would for to take a true meaning this man to understand that chemical weapons should never be used. never. it was done back in hitler days. mean, that is the norm that obama is trying to the use ofth against weapons of mass disruption, chemical weapons, and, you know, what you might call lessons of munich as they have been known over history. which is to stop atrocities before they happen. in this case, it was not before they happened, but i think the aim is to prevent this from happening again. to prevent a situation where other autocrats or dictators in feels thator anybody can can -- feels that they

use chemical weapons with impunity. that is why a day after those strikes need to be seen as effective enough. .o be a deterrent that is again the biggest question hanging 0-- host: one of the columns he wrote, attacking syria, all but there may be no way of doing it right. guest: right. we don't know what they have in mind. we expect that sometime after the eu when inspectors leave this weekend, something will occur. u.n. inspectors leave weekend, something will occur. then the question will become -- if they going to be targeting military of facilities, is he going to be targeting a very close to assad, a thought

himself? i don't think so. there has to be some sense of loss on the side of the assad regime here without going so far be seen as jumping in with both the civil war itself on the side of rebels whose names we also don't defend. host: do you think as far as timing is concerned that this might take place before the president leaves for the g 20 on tuesday? guest: i think it is highly possible. i think it is very close to being imminent. as i said, their wedding for the eu when inspectors to leave, and i think it could happen at any time. host: and he goes to russia to do that. guest: the russians have been -- considering they have been taking a strong support of assad against the western approach to syria, the russians have been conspicuously silent up until now, but i have no doubt that there will be some kind of repercussions. i mean, vladimir putin, the

president of russia, could easily decide after these u.s. us --s to better help better help assad. there will be repercussions, and we may hear about them in st. petersburg. the: what responses might government have against the type of weapon -- weaponry we are talking about, tomahawk missiles? guest: there is little defense against cruise missiles, which are highly accurate. again, it is just a question of waiting and finding out what the actual targets are, but the syrians do not have adequate defenses. of course, if it is just going to be a cruise missile sti rike, it is nearly risk-free and thread of life. host: independent line. i'm a: hello, mr. hirsch,

huge fan of yours. roper list to ask questions. where was the outrage when iraq was using chemical weapons against iran. i know this is a war setting as opposed to civilians. but i do not remove or anyone having any outrage when chemical weapons were used in the iraq war. the next come and i wanted to make is just like kansas was a precursor to the civil war, it seems to me that this is a research -- precursor to the war with iran. a thought, hasis block, our data, and syria -- hezbollah, iraq, and syria. the other, is what would be the purpose now of an attack. it seems to me that the time between the actual chemical

weapons attack and the response is so delayed that it seems to me it is almost -- does not serve a purpose now. and the other thing is what good is the cia? if they cannot give us the intelligence to target the actual individuals involved in using the chemical weapons. ,ost: i lot out there, caller let's let our guest respond. guest: in terms of the early chemical weapons used by saddam hussein in the 1980 for the, there is actually some evidence that the u.s. knew about this and looked the other way. because it supported saddam in that war. again, i run as it is today, the islamic republic was an enemy of the united states. today, theit is islamic republic was an enemy of the united states but if it is true, sort of a schimmel -- a

shameful episode in the u.s. history. the reagan administration did not take on chemical weapons use of saddam hussein according to the evidence i have seen. is.obama of course, perhaps obama himself and others in his administration are now wishing that they had not mentioned chemical weapons at all. that this remained a kind of rumor out there the way that for a long time saddam's use of of chemical weapons did. but none the less, it is out there. next point,the which is the question of , look,g a war with iran there is already a proxy war going on against iran using espionage from cyber and things like the virus. it is apparent or at least

alleged that the israelis are likely behind some of these assassinations we have seen of iranian nuclear scientists. clearly iran is involved already in the syrian civil war, both rightly in terms of arming bashar al-assad and supporting hezbollah. it is true that one set of usm the lease -- one set of u.s. enemies, i thought, has block, hezbollah, iran, if you are going to take a realpolitik view, why not just let all of our enemies kill each other? the caller says let's arm the secularists, and they are there, but they have become increasingly equipped as the month of got on. that is one reason perhaps the major reason why barack obama does not want to get involved in this war. but they capitalize on

what might happen as far as the ground game is concerned? nott: right now it is appear that the secularists are strong enough. the great fear is once you start to arm them, if they get defeated in the field, where do the weapons end up? in the hands of their enemies. that is frankly something that we saw a little bit in libya. weapons were's spread across the entire region. they do not want that to happen. host: secretary of state kerry making the case yesterday at the state department -- he talked about how conflict in iraq and afghanistan are waiting in the decisions that are being made about syria. here's what he had to say from yesterday. [video clip] >> we know that after a decade of conflict, the american people are tired of war. believe me, i am, too. but fatigue does not absorb us of our responsibility.

peace does notr necessarily bring it about. allory would judge us extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction's against all warnings of common understanding of decency. the things we do know. we also know that we have a president who does what he says he will do. and he has said very clearly that whatever decision he makes in syria, it will bear no resemblance to afghanistan, iraq, or even libya. it will not involve any boots on the ground, it will not be open- ended, and it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway. host: we're talking about potential actions in syria with our guest, heiko hirsch, of "national journal," he serves as

their chief correspondent appeared mark from jamaica up next on our republican line. good morning. caller: it is an honor to speak to you guys today. first of all, there is a lot of factors involved here, which i think people are ignoring, ok. number one, what i've heard is that intelligence has been coming from israel. as far as i know, israel still occupies an area that they are trying to acquire. i believe that any intelligence from israel is not going to be credible. also, bullets and bombs killed us as much as chemical weapons do. as a matter fact, they're more efficient because was able to get you, you are dead. with chemical weapons, you have a chance of surviving. i believe that if obama wants to stop this war, he would speak to assad and come to some consensus on where they go forward. but i believe there are many factors involved.

i think hezbollah, who is aligned with assad, is also an enemy of israel. --lso believe that it is not it is not a country's writes to tell another country what kind of weapons they should have. america has chemical weapons, so do lots of different countries. weapons, andave nobody is talking about that. -- israel also has nuclear weapons. guest: israeli intelligence undoubtedly contributed to the intelligence case against assad, but it was not a major part of it. at fourth i understand, a lot of this was u.s.-based intelligence, as was evident on the ground in syria. i would not overstate israel's role in this. in terms of israeli national interest, it is difficult to tell what the israelis might want.

the golan heights is no longer a very important issue for bashar al-assad's survivalist. this is really a bloody, vicious, internal civil war in syria that is based on ethnic and sectarian differences in which it is not just about about's survival, it is o the survival of his sect, which is aligned with the hezbollah sunnis, against these radical islamist militias. that is what the fight is about. it has little to do with israeli interest. host: good morning from colorado, democrats line. caller: good morning. i support our president going to war concerning these chemical weapons.

assessed the situation. he also told assad in the world that chemical weapons should not be used. when you see children, ,specially children in schools being bombed, used to michael weapons against, we can no longer -- used chemical weapons against, we can no longer sit by because number one, if assad used those kinds of weapons against children, he will use it against us. makesesident always decisions based on analysis. he does not rush into situations. i feel so secure with president obama because he always tries to

conclusionme to some with the other person or the other party rather than rushing into war. well, the caller makes an important point. if obama has any credible it here, it is that he has shown extreme reluctance to get involved in syria in any way, even against the advice of some of his top advisers. we tend to forget that for a long time, the president stood almost alone while -- in his first term -- while everyone from secretary of state hillary clinton to others like his current national security adviser susan rice were advising some kind of intervention in terms of arming the syrian rebels. has beenarly consistent and not wanting to get involved.

which is one of the reasons why it is all more credible now when he says he wants this to be a very limited action. i have no doubt that is what he intends. host: the court of public opinion -- this is from gallup -- they did a series of p olls. in kosovo, 51% approving raises 45% disapproving. 47% approving versus approving. in syria, 42% said yes, 50% saying no, no military action should be taken. is a lot of there war weariness. that is the word of the day here for obvious reasons. , which obamaaq wound down in 2011.

i think the evidence is overwhelming at this point that that was a completely unnecessary war. just now winding down the longest war in the country's history in afghanistan, which in clearlyt effort was impacted by our diversion to iraq by the bush administration. so there's a sense, let's keep out of it, nets -- less no longer go in search of these monsters to destroy, any words of john quincy adams. i think that is what lies behind those poll numbers. in the case of the libya and average income, they came as a time when it was a lot more hopeless about the arab spring. weve seen her dominant -- have seen predominate. that was led by france and britain, so i think there was a more secure cents about that. the irony here is that obama is going to lead what is going to

be largely a unilateral military mission in defense of multilateral norms. u.s. is casting itself as a police man for the world. a lot of people don't like that role, but it is also fair to ask the questions -- who else is going to play it? host: this is tom for massachusetts, independent line. you, for taking my call, and the standard syria makes -- and a c-span. a lot of the money syria makes of of oil is to acquire weapons from russia. if we did a little action all the policy with the russians, i think the russians could defuse the situation by forcing a thought to bring the chemical

weapons to the little bases they have their. get verification from the international community, and get the weapons out of the country. we couldn't run and play our ace in the hole, with nothing at this point may happen, is to refineries,ir oil and let the russians take out -- unless the russians help. that way they do not have money to buy from russia. i make a decision about the civil war peace, not -- and i think the russians could step forward and rid the country of the chemical weapons. what do you think? isst: first of all, syria not a major oil producer of any kind. the most important point is that the russians have aligned vladimir putin, against u.s. interests, not just here but in other areas as well. this is not a good time for u.s.-russia relations. i do not see really much of a

u.s.bility of an effective and diplomatic approach to russia to get russia to put pressure on i thought -- assad right now. the assad regime is in a fight for its life. the russians have taken inside with assad. one of the reasons there has been so much silence from moscow in this is because i think they islize that their good ally something of a war critical in having used chemical weapons. but it is not mean they will come out against him. host: as far as the military tactics, outlined by a ministration officials, the scenario- the likely for attack

host: so hit the of the structure, but not the chemicals themselves. guest: right. that certainly makes the most sense. i think they want to minimize any loss of life, with the possible exception of perhaps targeting some of the individuals in the regime who were responsible for the chemical weapons use. they will not hit the chemical weapons themselves because of the danger that they could be disbursed in the air -- sed in the air. we will probably aim for the infrastructure. then it will become a question of how good the u.s. intelligence is. this is something that we may right afterward or anytime soon or ever, possibly. remember when the israelis struck the syrian nuclear strike some years back, we did not really know the details of that. of the syrians only sort

obliquely acknowledged it later on. before wesome time know if they had any success, if any. host: for instance, if we do this, and cape -- and chemical weapons were to attack -- chemical weapons attacks were to continue, then they could strike again. guest: that is a danger of being pulled in, looking ineffective, and losing your credibility. that is why the challenge for obama is to get this right and to do something that is not sort of cosmetic and done for pr purposes because he said it was his red line, but to do something that really puts fear into a thought. and prevents this from happening again. that is the use of chemical weapons because certainly if that happens, obama will be obligated to hit him again, and then where are you, are you then involved in a war? host: tom up next, independent

line, hi. tom? caller: yeah, this is tom. i do that they question -- host: monica that night, florida, republican line, hi. caller: i have a simple solution to this problem that they are making so complex. assad should not even be an office. we don't need to put fear in him, he needs to be taken out of office. the best way to do that is to send the navy seals in like they did with bin laden and just take that crew out. we're making this too difficult because what is going to happen, we need to show the other countries that we are not playing with them with these nuclear weapons. that is what needs to happen. case closed. well, it is a lot more difficult than the caller says. it may sound simple, but clearly , particularly with is having telegraphed the way it is, and assad's personal security, it is

going to be very tight. i think you had to do a lot more than sit in and group of navy seals at happen in the bin laden rate in 2011. that does guarantee boots on the ground involvement in a war that the president wants no part of. host: william in texas, democrat line. caller: good morning to you and your guests, two. -- guest, too. i have a question for you, pedro. is c-span an acronym for something yo? host: cable satellite public affairs network. caller: ok. i never got that figured out. host: why don't you ask your question? caller: you do this to me every

time, pedro. we know what we're doing here in terms of our talking here, what we are doing here is very closely, you know, consciously saying that assad is using these chemical weapons in their international "norms." is it against international law to use chemical weapons? guest: yes. there is a chemical weapons treaty that most countries have signed, including iran, it is against the all -- it is against the international law. the countries hesitate to do something about it. i guess there is a disconnect, if that is the right word. guest: look, practically

speaking, there is not that many countries with military capabilities to do something about it. basically the united states, france, britain, israel, not that many more. , and certainly in the air. so it becomes a question of what is the meaning of international law and these norms, as we call them, and are they important or useful or effective at all if they are not enforced? how do you enforce them? if someone violates them. it has been the case that it has been a longtime since a weapon of mass instruction has been theseike this in circumstances, so the international community has not been put to the test. and now it is. and president obama is in the hot seat. why this is really such an important moment come i think. let's see what this enforcement

consists of. host: is there a sense of figuring out how a thought will take this as far as if and when we strike, how he takes this and uses this, pr purposes, propaganda purposes, or what have you. look, if he survives whatever is about to come, i have no doubt that any hours after, the u.s. action, he will come out and declare victory, use it for propaganda purposes. he has already -- he is already doing that in terms of gathering supporters around him. affect will remain to be seen. i mean, i think -- again come as we said before, the critical test will be will use them again? if he does not use them again, then obama can declare victory and say look, our adjusted have been achieved. -- our objective has been achieved.

we send the message to anyone in the future that might contemplate the use of chemical weapons. host: columbus, indiana, is where our next caller lives. stephen, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to grow quickly -- why has there been no mention of the possibility that the chemical attack was actually a airstrike on rubble munition egos that contain typical weapons that were taken out of benghazi? no mention that's chemical weapons are missing from libya, and that's ambassador stephens killed in benghazi are now training leaders in syria that obama is not mentioning, or storing chemical weapons along with their missions -- ammunition so they can blame syria for using chemical weapons and justified is obama, -- israel

abolish america's decision but replacing it with the koran. guest: the evidence that was thatout yesterday targeted innt somewhat effectively terms of satellite imagery, telephone intercepts, evidence elementian regime loading, storing chemical weapons. the case was made that these were not rebel munitions. suspicions ares not unique. there are people, and certainly this is what the assad regime if the thing itself, to the extent that any chemical weapons were evident, they were rebel weapons and they were used by the rebels. but i don't think that's the case hold up very well. presentedevidence yesterday, do you expect the

ministers might have to present a legal case of any action? mounting aas been legal case, mainly domestically in terms of what the president can do under the war powers act. apparent fromome the way that congress has been consulted that obama is not looking for their permission. he is simply informing them of what his plans are. host: we had a viewer on twitter, they talked about if congress is the one that is supposed to make these kinds of decisions when it comes to military conflict, and yet the president can do so without congress, how does that work? guest: the war powers act as a congressionally approved law. the president can take action like this for 60 days without asking for any consent from congress. that is probably what he intends to do. host: josephine from virginia, republican line. caller: hello? good morning.

i am concerned about our servicemen and women. i remember white americans got to go to every country, and you will know, and tell everybody else how to be. my heart goes out for those people in that country, but, we went to iraq, and those people turned against america. flag, theyurning our thought we come over there, take over their country, and some of them -- they just that we were trying to get their oil. and we lost so many young

people. call we will take one more before we let you go. mark from virginia, democrats line. caller: i'm just amazed at the onrt memory that the callers your republican line seem to have. as i recall, when the war in iraq was first proposed, rumsfeld, cheney, a lot of those on the right wing said that this war would spark democracy in the middle east. that once saddam was taken down, democracy would spread throughout the land. in fact, when the arab spring started, as i recall, a number , icommentators on fox news cannot recall if cheney was part of this, for taking credit for the -- and now they have gone bad, they're trying to blame obama. i would like to hear what the guest has to say about it. of the pieces i read about this says it probably marks the end of the arab spring. guest: yeah, the arab spring has

obviously gone bad. what the caller was referring to, one of many miscalculations of the budget administration about the iraq war. and clearly they did not really understand the region. scholars of the middle east or the arab world have long known democratic kind of process, it was likely that islamist parties like the muslim brotherhood would come to the floor. organize opposition to the secular dictators. saddam hussein and mubaraks. that was another misreading of the arab war by the bush decision that we are stopping. host: michael hearst, chief course on it for the "national journal." thank you for your time. not only will congress has to do with the issue of syria when it comes back into session, but it would have to deal with issues of the economy and the budget and particularly the debt ceiling. if i debt is looming according to house speaker john boehner.

up next, we will talk about what is next for congress because to issues of the economy with damien colletti of the -- damien paletta of the "wall street journal," all of this as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> one of the most fun times i ever had was it was 2006, and it looked like democrats really were going to take over the house. it was looking pretty bad for republicans. 'sd vice president cheney office called and wanted to know if robert and i could come over and have breakfast with them, so we went over to the vice president for the residents and had breakfast with him. -- first ofm before all, it was unbelievable how much he knew about -- i mean he

has been to so many of these deserts over the years as one of the republican leaders of the house and the than that. but basically he was sort of asking us how bad is this. saying yeah, it is pretty bad. but that is kind of fun when you get to talk to the caucuses on both sides and you get a glimpse of the inside players. years as ae than 30 political analyst, charlie cook has uncovered the trends while tracking every congressional race since 1984. see the rest of this q&a interview sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> and very often, what you see as the causes of the first lady become so entwined with her image that she keeps that cause and that image through the rest of her life. i mean, we could talk about rosslyn and her commitment to mental health, and we can talk

about barbara bush and her commitment to literacy and her foundation. betty ford and her commitment to sobriety and addiction. >> monday night, historians richard smith and edith mayo preview season two of c-span for the original series "first ladies -- influence and image," looking at their private lives ,nd couple -- public roles monday night at night at lucky -- atn c-span, c-span.org 9:00 on c-span, susan radio, and www.c-span.org. host: damian paletta "wall street journal joins us from the "wall street journal." thank you for coming on. even aside from things that commerce will have to deal back internationally, one of the things that will be a topic, number one, that of the debt ceiling. for those who do not understand it what is the debt ceiling? guest: congress passed a law decades ago that says the

congress can only borrow enough money up to a certain limit to pay its bills. every few years, congress raises that limit. right now, it is about $16.7 trillion should when we get to the limit, the treasury department cannot borrow any more money to pay things like military bills, social security, medicare, or any of the other things for the court, white house, congressional spending, that sort of figured they have to raise the limit if they want to spend more money. every time we get in that situation, it becomes a big fight because obviously there is a lot of people on capitol hill that say the government spends way too much money, the white house says we need to raise the debt ceiling or a can cause a big fiasco, and that if they see it -- the situation we are hurtling to in october. ,ost: jacob lew sent a letter and he talked about what happens if we suppress the debt limit and we don't have some type of resolution. guest: that is right. the government takes about 80 million payment a month, that includes social security payments, things like the park

services and stuff like that. if we get into a situation and met october when they have not -- in mid-october where they have not raised the debt ceiling, they will have to cut 30%, 40% across the board could we have never been in that situation before. who knows how financial markets would react and obviously have a big impact on americans, too, who benefit from a lot of these things are to counter argument is that the government is spending way too much money, there has to be a point when people say enough is enough. can useans think they this to get spending cuts. host: once the congress comes back, the house speaker does what you? guest: the republican say they're not going to do with the white house as a just raise the debt ceiling grid it is a theory game of chicken right now. there is no excitation they are even going to start negotiating until after mid-september, maybe early october. is consuming ang

lot of tension in washington right now, too, so the scary thing about this right now is no one is even looking at a solution. host: our guest will be on to talk about the debt ceiling issues of the economy, and the budget, you can ask him questions. (202) 585-3881 for republicans. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. independents. for if you want to tweet us, it is @cspanwj. you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. a facebook page if you want a quote on there as well. is this a fight that house speaker john baker -- john boehner is leading? guest: republicans are actually pretty united on this that they want to use this moment to get spending cuts from the white house. they are not united on what spending cuts to ask for. someone to defund the white house health-care law. others want to have big changes in social security and medicare structures in order to cut

future spending. they're not really united on solutions are democrats don't really have their own proposal, either, so that is why this is so messy right now going into september. host: the idaho statement come i've made it clear that we are not going to increase the debt limit without cuts and reform that are greater than the increase in the debt limit. we're going to have a whale of a fight. guest: that is record the deficit, $600 billion a year, the government spends that much more than it brings in revenue. the government needs to raise the debt ceiling about $600 billion to get just one year's reprieve under the debt ceiling. inhner wants $600 billion spending cuts over 10 years. that is doable, for sure, but it is not the stuff the white house is going to agree to easily. and the white house wants tax increases to be part of a deal. host: we have artie make cuts in spending because of sequestration. guest: sure, we have artie made lots of cuts in spending -- we have already done lots of cuts in spending.

within tax increases a part of the fiscal cliff dear. they are making progress, a lot of people think we have a ways to go. we're cutting the deficit to quickly because they believe we need to get the economy going, invest in if the structure. republican say we cannot get the deficit down fast enough. sort of have a different philosophical role on this. what about the fight that led to the idea that we have sequestration right now? guest: into the of and 11, we had a big showdown between the white house and republicans on the debt ceiling, and it led to this budget control act that put in place the sequester cuts that we are living with her now, and the sequester cuts began in march and continue for another eight years. no one really seems to like them. the big cuts in defense spending among other things, a lot of people from both parties are trying to undo them, but they cannot agree on how to do it. there was also a debt ceiling increase in january or february where republican said we will

agree to suspend the debt ceiling but only democrats in the ceiling will have a budget resolution for the first time in several years. the democrats did that come in neroli, but they did it, and that is what they could buy time until october. host: damian paletta with us. first call for you as from asked, north carolina, independent line. joe, good morning. caller: good morning. at this force on the fiscal cliff. you are not going to have the government forced back into the barn, you will not send the navy back to the docks, everybody back to the barracks, and you're not going to turn runneth a postal service, we are not going to pay you know more since we pay you anyway. much of this is a bunch of boo- boo. it, and it, we know fear mongers, that is how they get everything passed. everybody is a fearmonger and a saber radler. that is how this country works,

and it is a crying shame. interestingis an point. one thing we have from business leaders is is is a washington- created crisis. they are creating this mess in the economy that is just starting to recover. the gdp is looking a little better. jobs are looking better. washington is just creating it. that is one of the argument we hear a lot, especially considering they always pull a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute and solve the problem. ae problem is -- they do pull rabbit out of the hat so often that people will assume if they do it again, and maybe the one- time the rabbit will not be there, and then what are we going to do the database sort of -- the day they blast through the debt ceiling? if they do it too quickly, it will look like it or not hold out for the best possible deal. talk to ournahue newsmakers program, which is going to air tomorrow, 10:00, if you want to see appeared one of the things they talked about with the fiscal cliff and is not only his thoughts on it but how

the speaker should react to it. we will let you hear what he has to say get your comment on it. [video clip] >> when this is on, we're going to have to do some expense cutting to make a deal to expand the debt because as i said a minute ago, if we default on the debt, we are defaulting on america's position in the world. i think the speaker has got to go out and make a strong case that he is not going to make this easy or he is going to extract other requirements to do the debt. i think in the end, this is america. we are going to stand up and do it. what is interesting about this is these are not new issues. they have been talking about this and election, the 2011 debt ceiling increase, everyone has their own opinion on social security, medicare, tax increases. but the positions have not softened. they are still where they were

several years ago. it is just hard to see how they come up with some sort of bipartisan deal when everyone is doug and right now. sherryur next call is from boule, maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning, how are you? is about paying for things that have already been appropriated by congress. the way to cut spending is to do it through the budget process. people like to believe that this is the way to cut spending? the debt ceiling is not about new spending, it is about money that congress has already appropriated. guest: she raises the point that the white house makes frequently. i think the way the republicans see it is that this is the great leverage point for them to try to make those changes to the budget. they are talking about big issue issues -- medicare, social

security, big parts of the federal budget that are only going to grow over time. this is about as much leverage as they are ever going to have to make those changes. the problem is, the republicans are not unified about what they're going to ask for, and the democrats are saying they will not negotiate. that is not a place where you can get people to the table. host: historical time -- historical context on twitter -- spending on wars and tax cuts, and now need of a sequester. she does that's no more -- she just addes no more! guest: opposing the debt ceiling for some of the same reasons republicans are arguing now. he see both sides. host: republican line, bloomington, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. about the spending cuts, when they undermine an already weak economy. and then we have higher unemployment and lower tax revenue, even for the states. that is not make any sense to me. bud raises the

point that we hear a lot in washington. the idea is not to cut spending on programs like the military and other things, although they do want to cut things like food stamps, but it is to cut future spending on things like medicare and social security and things that maybe eight or nine years down the road, spending in these programs will grow as much as much as it is expected to grow now. there is definitely on argument to be made that if you cut spending now, you are going to hold back the economy, but i think there are different ways of looking at that. host: where is the budget? we would not need to raise the debt ceiling if we had one. guest: it would be a lot easier to raise the debt ceiling if the house and senate agreed on a budget resolution, which they have not done. they have not gone to congress on this. the republicans feel it is a trap the democrats are laying to get them to raise the debt ceiling, so they refuse to do that. host: we talk about this

program, how there have been discussions at the white house with democrats and the white house over settling over a budget, president obama taking folks to dinner, where are we in that progress? guest: eight different groups have gotten together gotten together, starting with bowles- simpson in 2010, continuing with the thing we called the dinner caucus where the president took republican senators out to dinner. everything has fallen apart at some point. the dinner caucus fell apart a few days ago. they threw their hands up and walked away. bridgeable an un divide. they have not been able to get together. there has always been a sight discussion between the white house and republican senators -- always been a side discussion between the white house and republican senators on a budget deal. host: does the president feel

compelled to come up with a solution other than raising taxes? guest: the president feels like he is in his legacy period. he wants to think about things he can sell for his legacy, things he can sell to the middle class. he feels like he is in a position where the election looked at a lot of these issues and he feels lucky won and he feels like we american people already -- feels like he won and the american people agree. caller: when you do not do your job in a business, you get laid off. i would like to see congress suffer all look so by not receiving their pay check for the work they are not doing. everybody in 2014, it is an important vote. they are trying to ruin obama's legacy. let's put obama ahead and let's

do the right thing in 2014. i would like to see their paychecks in did until they do their job. thank you very much. guest: 2014 will be a massive they do not raise the debt ceiling. we have to get through all of october, november, december. the issues she raised of not having congress get paid seems like a far out idea. there were going to do it. that was the law that if they did not pass a budget resolution, they would not get paid. they did pass a budget resolution because they wanted to get paid. that was a temporary deal they reached. now they are facing a whole new set of challenges. host: is this a case where there is a line in the sand and some solution will come at the last hour demo -- at the last hour? guest: we have seen this movie where they dig in and somebody

comes in at the last second and they get a deal. senator mcconnell, the mentor -- minority leader in the senate, does not want to be dragged into this. speaker john boehner is dealing with a lot of conservatives in his caucus that do not want him to cut a deal. you have the immigration issue and other issues he has to be careful on. it is on clear how they are going to get this group in the center from the republicans and the democrats to support something unless there is a mega-deficit reduction agreement. host: are there concerns over a shutdown? be a partialwould government shutdown on october 1 if the government -- if congress does not pass a continuing resolution, is centrally money to fund a lot of government operations. it is not like there would be a complete shutdown and the

military would come home. it would be a partial shutdown like we saw in the 1990's with president clinton. the timing is very similar. two weeks before the deadline on the debt ceiling. congress could try to roll those things together. if the partial shutdown happens in early october, that would be a bad sign going forward to the markets, to businesses, and to households that they are not seeing eye to eye. host: what is the likelihood that the speaker wants a shutdown to happen? guest: it is unlikely. both sides see it as a negative. the republicans could get blamed for it and it could hurt their chances of taking the senate. the democrats want to avoid it, too. the question is, what are the democrats going to be willing to accept and are the republicans going to propose major changes to the health care law that the

white house will not stand for? edward is up-- next. host: -- the republicans and the democrats need to get off the table social security and medicare. why do they use that as a pawn? this is not fair to people like me who collect social security. i have been paid into that since i was a 16 year old kid. it was taken out of my pay. i have already put my money into this. it is not fair that they use this as a pawn. i am disabled. severe it is -- severe diabetes. i cannot get medicare until february 2014. is it going to be there for me? now withafford things

the social security. guest: there are a lot of sad stories out there. social security and medicare make up about 30% of the federal budget and that number is only going to grow. americans turn 65 every day and qualify for medicare. medicareualify for early if you are on social security disability. they are trying to find ways to bring those costs down. whether that is raising the eligibility, may be making the payments for social security grow more slowly to a different inflation target -- there are a lot of creative ways to do that. the numbers start to snowball in 10 years. these are really tough issues to take to the public because people care so deeply. we are talking about 50 million americans who are in social

security, and about the same amount are in medicare. if you want to have been budget changes, it is hard to ignore it. host: damian paletta joining us from the wall street journal. in myrtle beach last week. a great place. caller: i wanted to ask a quick question. carter for theo end of reagan going into bush 1 , didn't the demographics of the baby boomers and how much money would be drawn out of social and what people were putting into the system and what would be taken out -- didn't the accounting office have something to do and we would have millions of people and not enough young

people in the system. it is ridiculous that this country cannot even get that right. i would let you comment on that. you are talking about the democrats for 2014. listen, if we do not have an equal fight on each side to keep its balance, we will not get anywhere. thank you a lot and have a good labor day. guest: he raises a good point. i do not have the specific numbers in front of me. 20 years ago, there were probably 8 people paying into social security for every person taking money out. now it is three people paid in for every person paying out. in the 1930's, the life expectancy was 64. you could not collect until you were 65. now life expectancy is beyond 65. it is one of the difficult issues to try to change. it is not a lot of money.

about $1,000 a month on the disability side. more on the retirement side. if you make changes and there is a widow and that is her only income -- as more and more people into the program, it is fiscally unsustainable. we probably have 20 years before we get to the point where the trust fund is exhausted and cuts have to kick in. they are trying to make changes now so the changes would not have to be as severe. host: james from new jersey. you are on c-span. am a question and i am in moderate. i am on both sides of the -- i have a question and i am a moderate. i am on both sides of the sense. -- the fence. country.venue for this

the only problem is this, paul ryan knows that many, many companies pay 5% taxes, 9% taxes, 12% taxes. so does obama. of ge is paying 5.8% taxes. and nobody says anything. 20% taxes.es pay even though i am democrat, i am a moderate. host: ok. thanks, caller. guest: the caller is talking about equal with tax rate. there are tax breaks businesses can enjoy and use.

they can get their tax rates down significantly below 35%. max baucus in the senate and the house are looking for ways to simplify the personnel and the corporate tax code to get rid of a lot of these tax breaks. host: they have been on tour throughout the united states making this pitch. guest: there has not been a real overhaul of the tax code since 1986 because so many people have interests and loopholes that they will the fans because there is so much money on the line. the caller makes an interesting point. host: can paul ryan step up in these negotiations as people like mitch mcconnell and other people are sidelined? guest: absolutely. he knows these numbers inside and out. he has the respect of conservatives across the board. he went toe to toe with the

white house during the election. he is one of the people we will see emerge as the voice of the republicans on this stuff. host: from vermont on the independent line, hi. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. it is complicated. my question is, if we are to take military action with the -- ans host: keep on going, please. caller: what would that do to our economy as far as helping or hindering? guest: we do not know the scope of what could happen in syria. weather is going to be a two day thing or a two month thing. is it going to cause a big revolt in congress? is it going to cause damage? respondria or others and target some of our allies in

the middle east? it depends. it is hard to see how this is going to affect the economy. john kerry made some pretty assertive statements last week suggesting we would target syria. the stock market took a tumble. investors do not like middle east instability. it is hard to tell, but it is a fluid situation. host: maverick off of twitter asked about the downgrade of america's credit rating. hurt the 47% or the 1%? guest: there was an important downgrade in long-term u.s. debt from the top notch to the second highest notch. it was a punch in the gut to the obama administration and to congress. it was less of a downgrade to our fiscal situation and more of a downgrade to our political dynamic. they could not see how washington could solve our

fiscal problems. a lot of ratings agencies have said our fiscal situation has improved as the economy has come back. the medicare situation has improved a bit because health- care costs have come down faster than expected. we are expecting a downgrade. if we do not get a resolution on the debt ceiling, that would be a negative as far as our credit outlook. some people thought it would raise interest rates when our debt was downgraded, but it has not done that. there has been instability in the rest of the world and investors are pulling -- pouring into securities and trade. host: republican line. caller: thank you. when it comes to cutting the budget and education, which are quick to let go of teachers and hold on to high school football. bares --nce bears --

high-school football does not have the value of teachers. why are we holding onto this? guest: this is one of those things that is a difficult dynamic in school districts across the country. how do you balance the investment of your education money. there are fights and people are dug in on this. what are people going to take out of their high-school education? are they going to get more from football or adding better teachers? i used to cover school districts and they grapple with this every day. democrats' on the line. caller: do you know how much social security has added to the national debt?

.uest: good question social security has these things called trust funds. it depends on what your definition of the national debt is. money goes into those trust funds every week when people get their paycheck. the government barrault's against that barrault'sborr -- sorows against that money, it is an account -- a complicated accounting problem. they are going to start paying out more than they have in the trust fund. that is when we get into the situation where we will have to cut benefits. host: on twitter, someone asks if the president would have to shut down the government if congress sends him a cr that defunds obamacare and he would not sign it? thet: would it be

republicans were sending a bill for who -- that he would not sign or the president for not negotiating with the republicans? host: how much does it affect the economy and specifically the budget and things like that? nsa the republicans see it -- the republicans see it as the government getting involved in private enterprise. the white house says it has been ruled constitutional, let's move on. this is one of those things where it is hard to see either side giving an inch, which is why it is a tossup. host: and they want to the funds -- defund it. guest: it is a vocal minority.

are they going to get mainstream republicans to agree to the defund clause. if they do, there will be a real slugfest in the senate. host: this is roberts on the thependent -- robert on independent line. caller: i want to talk about social security. social security and medicare do not come out of taxes. basically, social security is not 25% of the budget. the budget is 16 trillion dollars -- $16 trillion. homeomes out of your take- pay. you pay that like you pay your water bill in your groceries. it is not a tax. it is a fee. it is like going to the theater and buying a ticket. host: what is your question?

question.at is not my i was just trying to clear something up that everybody is saying that is not true. that is700 billion of social security benefits. slightly.ing to grow the proportion of medicare spending to the total budget is going to grow even more. $3.60illion out of a trillion budget is a big chunk of change. people did pay into the program. a lot of people who get these benefits are older. this is their income. it is hard for budget cutters to ignore a big part of the budget when they are looking to make cuts. gettingstory that says

the gop-controlled house to agree on raising the debt ceiling would only come with a bipartisan deal to make cost- farm programs to and government pensions. yesterday -- have made cuts they so far have all been on transportation spending and national parks. they have left alone huge parts of the budget because it is so hard politically to make these changes. there is a lot of money that could be saved by making changes to this program. they are going to try to open those programs up and who knows what happens when they do that. sam up next on the independent line. caller: there were six members of each team, the super committee, to come up with a

plan. they did not pick the teams properly. the republicans should pick three republicans and three democrats so that they get the people in the middle. the democrats should do the same thing. pick three democrats and republicans. those people would be the new super committee. all they would need to do is to lean a little to the left to pick up one of the left people or a little to the right. it would be a contest to see toch way they would lean to pick up that seventh person and propose that as an option. i will take your response of the air. guest: that is a creative idea -- doubtought -- got they have thought of. it is a dynamic that may have

progress if people took it seriously. host: there is a story in the washington post this morning that the president is proposing a 1% raise for federal employees to end the federal pay freeze. a 1% reyes is not much. raise is not much. people are leaving the federal government. it is not the most rewarding career. they are being beat up -- beaten up politically by being a federal employee. it would start in january of 2014. there is time to look at it. their pay has been frozen several years. a lot of people are upset about it. host: departments all over washington, d.c. have pulled that people coming to work. guest: these are called furloughs.

for some agencies, it is once every week where you have to stay home without pay. that money can add up. agencies do that rather than lay off 10% of their work force. the furloughs have not been as severe as people were expecting in march. they are expecting to pick up in intensity in 2014 if a solution is not found. some various camps said sequester would be harmful. how is it working out? yesterday huge lines at airports -- huge lines at airports, those things were fixed. we have this big operation in the middle east right now. hard to imagine that would happen if everything was duct taped together. they have had to make cuts in

other things like education and transportation. those things are expected to pick up in intensity next year. the damage has not been as severe as some were expecting. int: louise is up next indiana in our -- on our democrats' line. caller: i would like to talk about medicare and social security. how someunderstand and optan draw medicare out of paying for medicare bills. also, i would like to see a breakdown on how many people people's are on medicare

and drawing medicaid, those who are 65. 65 many do you have under who are on disability who are not paying anything? guest: there are a number of people who are getting medicare and medicaid benefits. from what we have seen by the number of people who have called about medicare and social security, these are personal issues for americans. that is why it is so hard for political leaders to go out and make changes to the programs. they think they are going to get whipped in the next election. these are real personal issues. they hear about these things all the time. everyone has a grandmother or a mother who use these programs and they can identify personally. we are in a situation that is difficult. they are avoiding it. is the budget.t

host: we go to tennessee. dwight on the republican line. hi. caller: i am 61 years old. paying into social security all my life. anyone who makes $100,000 pays 8.5% of their earnings. once you get above $100,000, or whenever the cap is, you do not pay any more. guest: he is exactly right. it is called a payroll tax. employers pay it as well. you only play -- take it up to

$110,000 in earnings. if you pay 200 -- if you make $200,000 a year, you paid up to .110,000 people who make more money will be paying more in social security. republicans are actually open to talking about that. others would see it as a big tax increase. it has been on the table, but not has but -- but has not seen university -- universal agreement. any indications as to who the next chairman of the federal reserve will be? has beenrry summers slight advantage. is also being

looked at closely. she told people she does not think she is going to get it. she thinks larry summers is going to get it. the president has a lot on his mind with the middle east situation. we do expect some sort of announcement to come as soon as the week after labor day and possibly in the weeks after that. that is going to be another part of this dynamic. the white house announcement on the economy is going to come. host: and expected pullback? there are all these things in the air. what is going to happen with the debt ceiling? will they be -- will there be an expected pullback? how quickly should they start to take their foot off of the accelerated? --the seller raider

accelerator? it depends on how well or how poorly the economy is doing. those are the kind of questions the next fed chairman is going to have to deal with, very difficult decisions about battling inflation, how to help the job markets, how to help interest rates, how to affect interest rates when the economy is in this prolonged recovery. host: one more call. this is david from missouri on the independent line. was just wondering. some of his debt. why do we barroso much money to china and give it away to these other -- why do we borrow so much money from china and give it away to these other

countries? we have thousands of people dying here every day because of the denial of health care. we need to back out of these other countries and start straitening out our own before we can start getting into straightening -- out our own before we can start getting into anybody else's business. we cannot just focus on things domestically and turn our focus away from these global issues? it is what we are hearing a lot on capitol hill as well. we have to focus on things domestically and not get drawn into things overseas. the world is a complicated place. the white house and congress have to make difficult decisions. does it make sense to try to give money to egypt to help the

situation there? does it make more sense to pull out? those are the difficult decisions they are going to be debating. these are fundamental questions as to how the government operates. host: he gets ceiling hits when? mid-october we will run out of room and money to pay our bills. we get helpey that us pay our bills. there is $50 billion in cash the government will have in october that they can use to pay bills. that is not expected to last forever. there will be a point where it sounds like they will run out of money. the question is, what are they going to do if they do not have a solution? we could see some financial market volatility of investors do not believe the government will be able to pay the interest on their bonds.

from theian paletta wall street journal. thank you for joining us. our last half hour will consist of calls. "washington journal" continues. after this. >> the arc of the moral universe may been toward justice, but it does not bend on its own. but it toward justice, does not bend on its own. it requires constant vigilance, not complacency. whether it is challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or in shoring that the

criminal-justice system is not a pipeline -- -- ensuring that the criminal-justice system is not a pipeline from schools to jails. anniversary of the march on washington beginning this morning at 10:00 eastern. american history tv, sail-- the last all sail warship. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at washington events, briefings, and compasses, and providing gavel to gavel coverage. we are c-span, created by the

cable tv industry 30 years ago. now you can watch us in hd. >> "washington journal" continues. participatehance to in open calls. 202-585-3881 for republicans, 202-585-3880 for democrats5-3882 -- and 202-585-3882 for independents. president obamas says he weighing limited action against

syria. the wall street journal. the headline says, the marks at's stance foreign policy shift. he appears to break from one of his bedrock ideas. can he make good on his warning and attack the syrian regime. he would be acting without the consensus that he championed during his rise to power. mr. obama's willingness to take a lead role in an attack on the assad regime has left some democrats disappointed. they signed a letter, cautioning mr. obama against war" andan "unwise supported the work of the united nations security council to

build consensus. we highlighted that in our first segment this morning. if you turn to the pages of the pittsburgh is that, there is a story about austria about a planned u.s. envoy visit. north korea has rescinded its invitation for a senior u.s. diplomat to travel there to secure an american christian missionary imprisoned on charges of committing hostile acts against the government. has been scheduled to fly friday from tokyo. a part ind to request an amnesty for the missionary. it is an american from washington state. there are no details. that was from the new york times, found in the pages of the pittsburgh post gazette. open phones. charles from connecticut.

you are on the republican line. caller: two things. would you business daily to the number of papers that you use. investor's business daily has a unique opinion of their all that is constructive. the second thing is, a number of years ago when it was still open, a number of counties in taxes were able to vote out of taking part in social security. over the years, i have seen reports from people who are in what is called the galveston plan. it seems to me from the numbers i have read that it is far superior to social security. i was just wondering if there was a possibility that you would have people who are a part of that on the program to explain

the way it works so that they can get some comparison out to the general public as to how that plan works in comparison to social security. host: you call this the galveston plan? caller: i believe that is what is called. it is a number of counties in galveston that were able to separate themselves from social security. a law was passed that no one else could do that after that. daily.nvestor's business tell me about their viewpoint and why you think it is important. caller: i subscribe to the wall street journal and i subscribed to investor's for a while. they haven't totally independent viewpoint that i do not see on the right or the left. you could say is an independent

view point. host: thank you very much. i appreciate the suggestion. caller: good morning. everyone who blame president obama for the decision should realize there is a shadow government behind him. what, andok at who, why on the computer, they will see the background behind that. there is a lot of people behind the scenes. we should look to god and the future. there are a lot of things going on that will not be pretty, according to the bible. host: a headline reflecting syria. you probably saw the secretary of state yesterday on this network and others talking about the information that came out

from their analysis. civilians killed from chemical attacks, including 426 children. he said he was familiar with these attacks. military unit used gas mask in preparation for the attack. if you want to see the secretary of state from yesterday, feel free to go to our c-span website, c-span.org. we have also included the documents the white house released and a map showing where these attacks took place. this was released yesterday. go to our c-span web site for all of that information. indiana on the republican line. hi. yes, i was calling. i saw voted back in 2009,

s,at when i voted for texa thought it was for the school. i made big mistake. could you straighten it out for me if you could? voting thing. this is the united states of america. i thought that was for the school kids. have been contacting your local election officials in atlanta? caller: yes. about these missiles going off signing, obama is papers, but i never see him reading it. it seems like he was going over messing with those people. george bush never did that. -- fromdy, an asheville

nashville, tennessee. go ahead. caller: i want to talk about how they have plundered the social security fund. for years and years and years. reagan started the idea of taxing social security recipients on their social security -- what they get from social security. way paulresent the ryan's idea -- he is so worried about his kids and his grandkids paying for the people for generations who have paid into it since it started, taking money from them. worrying about his kids. obama is plundering medicare now. seniors are not his

constituency. i am disgusted with the whole thing. i used to be a republican. now i am and independent. paul ryan is the reason i am and independent. i am not happy with what obamas is doing. he wants to give money to the young because they are more likely to vote for him. he does not care about the seniors either. that is my comments. host: "the washington post released a story about -- the washington post released a story about what they called the black budget. it says u.s. intelligence services carried out 231 cyber operations in 2011, a theater of fined seven times in war, according to classified documents obtained by the post. it provides new evidence that the obama administration's

growing ranks of cyber warriors infiltrate and disrupt foreign computer networks. it was thought to preserve an international norm against acts of aggression in cyberspace. the policy debate has moved so that defensive options are now more -- offensive options are now more prominent. nowe is more of a case may that cyber operations can be an important element in deterring certain adversaries. democrats'a on the line. hi. about thecalling upcoming war in syria -- caller: i am calling about the upcoming war in syria. that withone thinking

the mess in syria, may be the opposition has some insight in trygovernment and they will to frame the syrian government to make the united states get in. it is hard to believe that assad is so stupid. that large enough to know if he uses chemicals in this country we will launch an attack. what you think about that? i do not understand that. host: we will let other people if they want to. this story comes out of canada.

canada titans' its immigration rules. american lawmakers debate how to revamp u.s. immigration policy, and canada has embarked on a major immigration overhaul of its own. formmpact of canada's we will be in washington, where elements similar to the screening applications have found their way into the immigration plan that passed in the u.s. senate in june. there is greater emphasis on factors such as an applicant's job skills and fluency in english or french. a chasm could spark an immigration-related social tension. there is more available at the wall street journal. in new mexico on the republican line, joe.

hi./ are paying off 1% of our debt. we should print the deficit. should pay 1% of the debt out of taxes. we should print the deficits. host: tell us a little bit about the philosophy of why. caller: eventually, to get out of debt, it would take 100 years. eventually, we would get out of debt. maybe, in the future, we could pay off more debt. is up next in texas on the democrats' line. caller: my comment is about the president making the red line

remarks in regard to syria. i think it was a pretty shrewd remark. to get into the withoutf this thing declaring we are for or against the opposition to bashir al assad. us -- anything that we assad's abilityl- to fire upon his people is going to help the opposition. now that i think about it, i think the remark was pretty shrewd. the president can use the cover that this was punitive measures. we are not declaring who we are

taking sides with. host: here is the president yesterday. [video clip] >> i have not made a definitive decision. as i have already said, i have had our military and our team look at a wide range of options. we have consulted with allies. we have consulted with congress. we have been in conversations with all the interested parties. consideringare we any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. we are looking at the possibility of a limited, help make that would sure that syria and others

around the world understand that the international community cares about maintaining this kimmel " weapons -- this norm.cal weapons ban and we are not considering an open commitment or any booths on the ground approach. we would consider options considerboots on the grounds -- we are not considering any open commitment or any boots on the ground approach. host: in an analysis of mr. he is theole, administration's most prominent hawk. ascame to national attention a vietnam war hero. how you ask the man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

in 2003, he supported the war against iraq's saddam hussein. for president against george w. bush in 2004. you can see mr. kerry's statement and the president's full statement on our website, c-span.org. in connecticut, bill on the independent line. hi. caller: is today, i was reading an article that talked about an , oreporter that discovered interviewed rebels who actually had the chemicals and set them off. we have not heard any of this in the mainstream press, which is strange.

this is a reputable reporter from ap. , the seniorint is counsel at the world bank indicated this is all about running a pipeline from kuwait to syria in order to block off russia's ability to sell gas to the european market. these are stories that have not got into the mainstream. those are my point. thank you. cheryl and the independent line. about theam calling president and the situation in syria. i agree with the caller. there are alternative motives. we do not know why they are doing all of these wars.

we have been in so many wars since president obama has been here. he always has people in his cabinet who are supposedly peaceful people. ever since he has got in there, we have had nothing but wars. that theyis saying is should find a way to not have these wars besides being alternative moses. they have to have alternative they should find a way not to have these wars besides alternative motives. they need to let our leaders know that we do not want these things. we do not want to be tricked into wars. host: have you called your legislator yes? .aller: i called my legislator

i am actively involved in getting my leaders know that not approveat we do of these type of things. this is ridiculous. we need to settle the things that are happening in our country. we have people in our country who are being tortured and the government needs to take care of them. i understand the thing that happened in syria was horrible. why is the united states the only country going after them. why are we policing the world so much? reviewers on twitter -- mark williams on twitter reflects the same sentiment. disappointed. disappointed with potus.

thatr: i am disappointed ony say we do not need booths the ground. we have 20,000 troops in jordan that are trained to do the same thing. i find that astounding. democrats'na on the line. caller: i was calling in to make a comment. the president has to do something. thee does not do anything, world community will not do anything when he draws the red line. have asame subject, we lot of problems here at home that need addressing just as well. our troops in harm's way again, it is hard. .e is boxed in a corner

throughout his presidency, people have been disrespectful to him. he has a hard decision to make. host: the richmond times dispatch as a story about the epresentative therigell -- scott rigell. he has emerged as the point man on a push for congressional approval of an obama administration military strike on syria. constitutiony the , the representative condemned the president assad regime's use of chemical weapons. thefrom missouri on independent line. good morning. like toi would just make a point.

there is a large emerging group of young people. week to week with these guardian leaks. of the usema speak of that program against the american people as conjecture. dea is using this to arrest people for selling marijuana. it is fascinating to see how tose leaks are coming out discredit the official story line. it is ambiguous information the leaks. a caller talked about an ap reporter interviewing rebels.

how to close up that point. host: one more call. david on the republican line. caller: i was watching cnn yesterday. was information about who and the chemical weapons where it was going to be used was made available to our government. is our government culpable? host: that will be the last call we take on the subject. i want to tell you about tomorrow's program. the editor and chief of the libertarian publication. he will talk about libertarians issues, a variety of issues. i am sure syria will come up. aen we will be joined by

gordon adams, who teaches at american university. he was a former white house associate budget director. he will talk about the legal justification for any action in syria and the short and long term effects. 9:15, a senior fellow an expert on chemical and biological weapons and their use worldwide. andlk on their use in syria how these types of weapons are used. we will get the latest from the newspapers. we will take your calls. that will be on washington journal. it begins tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. we will see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> here's a look look at our schedule on c-span. insident obama takes place the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. the more about the watchmen the civil rights movement with rights previous -- reince priebus. it has been 50 years since the march on washington where martin luther king gave his "i have a dream" speech. now the commemoration cement -- ceremony with remarks from president obama, jimmy carter, and bill clinton. they spoke from the steps of